g^taraggoaoaarcasacgaaGa esa 

"library of congress. 



I cha P ._3)h:5A%-. 



$ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. $ 



WHAT Wi H. BURR 



HAS TO SAY IN DEFENCE OF THE 



LIBERTY LOVING THOMAS PAINE. 



THE INTERGRITY OF JUNIUS. 



WAS PAIKB JCKHISf 

Another Weak and Painful Performance ! 



SOME MOBB MISTAKES 



BLUNDERING AND MUD-SLINGING. 



Times Office, Seymour, April 105. 

\ 



~H' 



The Integrity of Junius. 
Washington, D. 0., April 18, '81. 
Forty years ago after Junius 
concluded his work, a new edition 
of his letter was published, includ- 
ing for the first time 63 private 
letters to his publisher Woodfall, 
10 private letters to John Wilkes, 
and 101 so-called miscellaneous 
letters of Junius under various 
signatures. A few of the private 
letters and most of the miscellane- 
ous ones are certainly spurious. 
£ We can judge of their authenticity 
now just as well as the editor could 
in 1812. Fifty-nine or sixty of the 
private letters are dated conjectur- 
ally by the editor, and many of the 
miscellaneous letters rest their sole 
claim on a coincidence between the 
dates of publication and the dates 
affixed to one or the other of the 
private letters to H. S. Woodfall 
(London Atheneum, 1852.) 

One year after the publication 
of those miscellaneous letters, J ohn 
Taylor, one of the proxorietors of 
the London Magazine, thought he 
discovered that Philip Francis was 
Junius, and in 1816 he published 
a book attempting to prove it. 
Whether anybody before him had 
ever suspected Francis, I never 
heard; but Taylor certainly was the 
first who attempted to establish the 
identity, and he did it almost 
entirely on those unauthenticated 
miscellaneous letters, beginnig 
with April 1737, when Francis was 
a clerk in the war office, only 26 
years of age. 

One of the arguments in favor 
of Francis is, that "in the month 
of January, 1772, the king remark- 
ed to a friend in confidence, 'Jun- 
ius is known and will write no 
morec' '-'Such," says the writer, 



Dr. Goodrich, "proved to be the 
fact. His last TDerformance was 
dated January 21, 1772. * * * 
Within a eew months Sir Philip 
Francis was appointed to one of 
the higest stations of profit and 
trust in India." Now the fact was, 
that Francis, then a mere clerk, 31 
years of age, was suddenly turned 
out of office in March following, 
and was not appointed to the office 
of profit and trust in India until a 
year and a half afterward. But if 
that young war clerk was Junius, 
then there is not among the dregs 
of human nature a character so 
false and vile as his: and Colonel 
Ingersoll is right in calling him "a 
coward, a calumniator and a sneak." 
But I stand ready to vindicate the 
stern integrity of Junius; and in 
order to show how. he stood in the 
estimation of unbiased critics be- 
fore Philip Francis was suspected 
to be Junius, I submit a few ex- 
tracts from the preliminary essay 
in Woodf all's edition, written and 
published in 1812. 

"In reality Junius, though a 
severe satirist, was not in his gener- 
al temper a malevolent writer nor 
an ungenerous man. No one has 
ever been more ready to admit teh 
brilliant talents of Sir William 
Blackstone than himself, or to ap- 
ply to his commetaries for legal 
information, while reprobating his 
conduct in the unconstitutional 
expulsion of Mr. Wilkes from the 
house of commons." 

"Yet there were statesmen whom 
he believed to be truly honest and 
upright, and for whom he felt a 
personal as well as a political 
reverence; and it is no small proof 
of the keenness of his penetration 
that the characters whom lie then 



singled out from the common mass 

of pretenders to genuine patriotism 
have been ever since growing in 
lunation, and are now 
justly looked back to as the pillars 
and bulwarks of the English con- 
stitution." 

"Vaughan himself had so high 
an opinion of our author's integrity, 
though a total stranger to him, 
that he entrusted him with' his 
private papers upon the subject in 
question, which Junius in return 
took care to employ to Yaughan's 
advantage." 

''Whether the writer of these 
letters had any other and less 
worthy object in view than that he 
uniformly avowed, namely : a de- 
sire to subserve the best political 
interests of his country, it is im- 
possible to ascertain with precision. 
It is unquestionably no common 
occurrence in history to behold a 
man thus steadily, and almost in- 
cessantly, for five years volunteer- 
ing his services in the cause of the 
people, amidst abuse and slander 
from every party, exposed to uni- 
versal resentment, unknown, and 
not daring to be known, without 
having any personal object to ac- 
quire, any sinster motive of indi- 
vidual aggrandisement or reward. 
Yet nothing either in the public or 
private letters affords us the re- 
motest hint that he was thus actu- 
ated. Throughout the whole, from 
first to last, in the midst of all his 
warmth and rancour, his argument 
and his declamation, his appeals to 
the public and his notes to his con- 
fidential friend, he seems to have 
been influenced by the stimulus of 
sound and genuine patriotism 
alone. With this he commenced 
his career,, and with this he retired 



from the field of action, retaining 
at least a twelve-month afterwards, 
(see private letter, January 19, 
1773), the latest period in which 
we aro able to catch a glimpse of 
him, the same political sentiments 
he had professed on his first ap- 
pearance before the world, and still 
ready to renew his efforts the mo- 
ment he could perceive that they 
had a chance of being attended 
with benefit. Under these circum- 
stances, therefore, however diffi- 
cult it may be to acquit him alto- 
gether of personal considerations, 
it is still more difficult, and must 
be altogether unjust, ungenerous 
and illogical to suspect his in- 
tegrity.'; 

The justice and candor of this 
writer is completely established by 
the discovery that Paine was 
Junius. "If I have anywhere ex- 
pressed myself over-warmly," says 
Paine, " 'tis from a fixed, immov- 
able hatred I have and ever had to 
cruel men and cruel measures." — 
Crisis, No. 2, 1777. "I speak an 
open disinterested language, dic- 
tated by no passion but that of hu- 
manity. To me, who have not only 
refused offices because I thought 
them improper, but have declined 
rewards I might with reputation 
have accepted, it is no wonder that 
meanness and imposition appear 
disgusting. Independence is my 
happiness, and I view things as 
they are, without regard to place 
and person; my country is the 
world and my religion is to do 
good."— Eights of Man, 1792. ^ "In 
a great affair, where the happiness 
of man is at stake, I love to work 
for nothing."— 1802. "I take neith- 
er copyright nor profit from any 
thing 1 publish."— 1807. "I have 



lived an honest and useful like to 
mankind; my time lias been spent 
in doing good, and I die in perfect 
composure and resignation to the 
will of my Creator God."— Will, 
1809. W.H.Bubb. 

~«y«^>~ 

For the Seymour Times. 

WAS PAINS JUNIUS? 



Another "Weak and Pameful Performance. 
Washington, D. -a, April 23, '81. 
The principal points presented by Mr. 
Underwood, in his various articles on the 
Junius question and the answers thereto, 
are as follows : 

1. "Paine says, the cause of America 
xns.de me an author." 

Answer : That cause crops out from 
first to last in the J unius letters. 

2. "Paine did not possess and was not 
in a situation to obtain the knowledge of 
persons and transactions necessary to ena- 
ble him to write those letters." 

Answer : Mr. Parton says Junius "was 
not in the circle of the well-informed;" 
and again, "Junius was nothing and 
knew nothing." The private letters to 
John Wilkes confirm the obscure position 
of Junius; so does his private letter, to 
Lord Chatham, quite recently brought to 
light. Paine was a life-long worker in 
se-cret. 

3. "The style of Junius is more stud- 
ied and polished than that of Paine." 

Answer: The earlier work of an artist 
always requires most labor and care. 
Paine's later writings are far less polish- 
ed than his earlier ones. Speaking of the 
style of Junius and of "Common Sense," 
Prof. Den slow, after arguing their identi- 
ty, says: "We have no writer in America 
to this day so practiced in the- har.dlbg 
of pure and elegant English, or that could 
have written either of the chapters of 
"Common Sense?" Again, in regard to 
Paine's scathing letter to General 
Washington, in 1796, the Prof, says: "it 
is so identical in style with portions of 
Junius that we cite parallel passages for 
comparison, though the unhesitating 
conviction that Paine wrote Junius will 
better result from the use of hundreds 
of passages than of two <or three." 

4. "Paine would hayj had no reason to 



conceal the authorship during the last 
thirty years of his life." 

Answer: Had he broken his solemn 
and deliberate promise, "I am the sole 
depository of my own secret and it shall 
perish with me," he would have been 
worse than "a coward and a sneak." 

5. "Did the poor exciseman write this? 
'For the matter of assistance, be assured, 
that if a question should arise upon any 
writings of mine, you shall not want it. 

[YOU SEE HOW THINGS GO, AND I FEAR 
MY ASSISTANCE WOULD NOT AVAIL YOU 
MUCH. * * * MY OWN WORKS YOU 
SHALL CONSTANTLY HAVE, AND] in 

point uf money be assured you shall nev- 
er suffer." 

Answer: Why did Mr. U. omit the 
above words in brackets and insert only a 
semicolon between the other two parts of 
the quotation ? Did he garble the passage 
himself, or borrow it from another garb- 
ler ? Further quotations which I made 
from the private letters show conclusive- 
ly tb:it all the ssshtance Junius rendered 
or could render, was the profits on his 
own works, which were more than Wood- 
fall wished to accept. 

6. "January 1772 the king remarked to 
a friend, Junius is known and will write 
no more." - * * * Xot long after - 
wards Francis was appointed to a posi- 
tion of profit and trust." 

Answer: It was a year and a half be- 
fore Francis was appointed, and if he was 
Junius he continued, as is claimed for 
Francis, to write uuder the signature of 
"Veteran" nearly three months longer, 
and under other signatures still another 
month. "Veteran's" fifth letter dated 
March 23, announced that Mr. Francis 
had been expelled from office by Lord 
Barrington ; then follow three more let- 
ters under other signatures continuing 
the assault on Barrington, the last being 
dated May 12, 1772. 

7. "Lord Brougham wrote while Fran- 
cis was alive; yet the essay called out no 
contradiction from Francis." 

Answer: Sir Philip Francis wrote to 
the editor of the monthly magazine, July 
1813: "Sir: — The great civility of your 
letter induces me to answer it, which, 
with reference merely to its subject mat- 
ter, I should have declined. Whether 
you will assist in giving currency to a 



4 



sii.i.y M LUGS ! i K)D, is a 

question for your own discretion. To 
me it ia m matter of ; erfect indifference." 
Mr. Burr utterly fails to reconcile 
Junius 1 BU] , the right 

to tax the American colonies, etc., with 
Paine's known hatred of the monarchical 
form of government, and his denuncia- 
tions oi Britain's claims on the eoh 

Answer: I proved by Paine's own 
- that lie was a monarchist until one 
year after Juni.itH ceased to write. And 
though it is true that Junius maintained 
the "speculative right" to tax the col- 
what rational man will dispute 
that right? But to show that Paine 
never disputed it, I quote from Prof. 
Denslow: "It is also noticeable how 
small a figure the question of taxation 
cuts in the declaration; and it will be 
remembered that Junius at first advo- 
cated the justice of taxing America, as 
Paine, being an exciseman, would na- 
turally have done, for an exciseman na- 
turally adheres to a tax. Moreover, 
Paine, out of contempt; for money, would 
have looked upon rebellion against a tax 
as mean." 

9. "The miscellaneous letters are 
death to the Paine theory. The genu- 
ineness of these letters is admitted, as 
Mr. Burr says, by Prof. Denslow." 

Answer: If those unauthenticated let- 
ters are death to the Paine theory, how 
about the Francis theory ? Says the Pro- 
fessor in his second essay: "Sackville is 
also, one of the few claimants of the hon- 
ors who could have been present as 
Junius says he was, at the burning of 
Busembaum, Suarez, Molena and a score 
of other Jesuitical books in Paris, at the 
hands of the common hangman, in 1714. 
I: ia not claimed that Philip Francis 
could then have been in Paris." Why 
the professor should thus have befogged 
d while seemingly maintain- 
al Paine bad at least a hand in the 
g of the letters, I cannot imagine. 
to was signed "Bif- 
rons," and dated April 23, l|C8. Will 
the Franciscans claim that as genuine? 

10. "Although Mr. Burr has fallen 
into an error, 'misled' as he says 'by the 
reviewer of the Nation,' I Bball i 

call him a 'blunderer' nor devote half a 
column to comments on this mistake." 



Answer: How very considerate! Did 
1 make a mistake? But even if I and 
not the reviewer did, of what importance 
was it? The space I have occupied in 
this discussion is much less than that 
taken by ray opponent, and if I devoted 
half a column to a mistake of his it was 
a very important one — nay, a vital one; 
and bis tardy answer to it was, that he 
wrote or intended to write inconclusive 
for c inclusive. 

11. "In his desperation to make a 
point, Mr. Burr is ready to admit for 
the moment that Paine slandered Silas 
Dcane." 

A nswer : I neither admitted nor denied 
it. I referred to it as one of Paine's 
anonymous assaults. Mr. U. replied by 
saying that the charges were true, as Mr. 
Burr knew. To that I replied that I did 
not know T it, and that a very intelligent 
old freethinker who had investigated the 
matter told me*that Deane was innocent. 
I also referred to other anonymous as- 
saults by Paine, as "Casca." And I will 
now add that ''Common Sense" which 
denounced "the royal brute of Great 
Britain" was published anonymously; 
and so also were the 16 numbers of the 
"Crisis," from 1777 to 1783, in which 
Lord Howe and others were assailed in 
the style of Junius. 

12. "Mr. Burr's censorious spirit and 
offensive personalties do not strengthen 
his position. I will not baudy epithets 
with him." 

Answer! At the outset of this discussion 
Mr. U. said: "Junius Unmasked is in my 
opinion a weak performance. " x " * * 
And the articles from the pen of Mr. 
Burr, have not 1 think, given one fact 
that goes/to.show that Paine wrote those 
letters?' That was the first personality ; 
and what did it imply but that I am either 
a fool, a lunatic or a knave ? 

13. "I am glad to know that Mr. Burr 
is not the author [of "J. U.,"] * * * 
for it reflects no credit on the judgment 
or judicial candor of its author, who got 
his wild theory. I understand, from the 
spirit world," etc. 

Answer: There is not a word about 
spiritualism in the book, and I stated in 






the Investigator and the two leading 

spiritual papers in January, 1872, that its 
author assured me he was not a spiritual- 
ist. Again, I made a similar statement 
in the Times, Sept. 11, 1880, in reply to 
an anonymous writer, who, nevertheless, 
dogmatically asserted that the author 
was a spiritualist. And recently Mr. XL 
has repeated the same assertion in the 
Investigator, after I had oo.ee more reit 
erated my former statement. Am I 
thus to be put in the attitude of a falsi- 
fier? If the author of J. U. is, or ever 
was, a spiritualist, I never heard of it ex- 
cept through these two assailants. 

14. "Jefferson was a liar ; John Adams 
was a 'meaner' liar. Denslow is a calum- 
niator, * * - and his [Mr. Burr's] 
assailants are knaves or ignoramusus." 

Answer : The lie that Jefferson, in his 
dotage, told, I insist was nothing like as 
mean as that of John Adams when he 
claimed that Jefferson had stolen his 
ideas from him to put into the declara- 
tion. As to Prof. Denslow, I have proved 
that he calumniated Paine in several in- 
stances. And I have called one assailant 
who, among other blunders, attributed to 
Benjamin Franklin what his grandson 
said, an ignoramus. But I have not call- 
ed any adversary a knave. I prefer to 
state and prove *iacts with as little com- 
ment as possible. 

15. "It is some consolation to know 
that one great and honest man stands 
erect amid the moral ruins of humanity, 
and that man is " 

Answer : Thank you, Mr. Underwood, 
for refraining from' offensive personali- 
ties, from bandying epithets, and for 
your courtesy in general. 

16. "The letter of Feb. .28," says Mr. 
XL, containing his correction, inconclu- 
sive for conclusive, "was delayed at the 
Times office owing to the loss of two of 
the sheets," &c. 

Answer: Was the first sheet lost begin- 
ning with the important correction? 
That, anyhow, should have been inserted 
at once. But in the next issue my sec- 
ond notice of the untenable position ap- 
peared, and another week passed with no 
correction ; but in the fourth week, 
March 19, appeared two letters from Mr. 
U., one dated Feb. 28, and the other 
March 8. both making the correction, and 



the latter censuring me for "taking ad- 
vantage of this error in two numbers of 
the Times before it was possible for 

HIM TO CORRECT IT!" How Could I SUS- 

pect such an error when it is apparent to 
everybody who has read Prof. Denslow's 
two essays, (and Mr. U. said "essay" in 
the singular), that the first is "conclu- 
sive" and the second "inconclusive" on 
the Junsus question ? Furthermore, Mr. 
U's letter of March 8, explains his failure 
to reply quickly to my articles by the 
fact that the Times does not reach him 
as early as it does me. Nothing there 
about the loss of sheets — nothing till now. 

17. "The little error into which I fell, 
misled I repeat by Mr. Burr, was cor- 
rected the moment I discovered it." 

Answer: It was I that discovered and 
exposed it. and when Mr. U. saw my ex- 
posure in the T. S. he hastened to correct 
it, but was too late for his article in the 
Investigator. And I repeat, it is disin- 
genuous to charge me with misleading 
him, when in the first instance I neither 
indorsed nor denied the statement so 
positively made that Benjamin Franklin 
said Jefferson drafted the declaration. Do 
such "offensive personalities" strengthen 
Mr. U's position ? 

THE RANK AND FORTUNE OF JUNIUS. 

18. "That Paine wrote of his rank and 
fortune to hoodwink Woodfaii is a mere 
assumption." 

Answer : Did not Junius have to 
hoodwink everybody? In explanation 
of one of his substerfuges he says : "The 
auxiliary part of philo Junius was in- 
dispensably necessary. **■■,# The 
fraud was innocent, and I always intend- 
ed \o explain it." Nor did Junius cat- 
egorically claim to be a man of rank 
and fortune; the expression was equivocal 
and susceptible of an irironical in terpre- 
taion. But what rank and fortune had 
Francis at the age of 28 ? And what 
kind of a fellow was he to write to his 
intimate friend and schoolmate: "I doubt 
very much whether I shall ever have the 
pleasure of knowing you?" Or this, 
two years later : "I am persuaded you 
are too honest a man to contribute in 
any way to my destruction,' Act hon- 
orably by me and at a proper time you 
shall know me." But. a proper time 
never come, and two or three months 



later Junius declared that his secret 

should perish with him. 

19. In answer to Mr. U's two columns 
of testimonials in favor of the Franciscan 
theory, and against Paine, I say: How 
would he like to decide the question of 
plenary inspiration by the weight of au- 
thority? Or eve-; the doctrine of evolu- 
tion, which Lamark BO ably maintained 
fifty years before Darwin, and yet never 
made an impression on the scientists of 
his day? Or how would he like to -de- 
cide the question of the revolution of the 
sun around the earth by a vote of emi- 
nent scholars during the life-time of Ga- 
lilleo? There are many John Jaspers 
even now among the ignorant who be- 
lieve that "the sun do move." And 
there are many scholars who are as yet 
unwilling to admit the demonstration 
that Paine was Junius. Mr. U. has ar- 
rayed a score of them in the columns of 
the Times. If any one of these savants 
will adduce a single reason against the 
identity of Paine as Junius, which I can- 
not answer as readily as I have answered 
all those hitherto presented, then let the 
undersigned be everlastingly damned to 
an orthodox hell ! W. H. Burr. 



For the Seymour Times. 

Some More Mistakes. 

Washington, D. C., April 16, '81. 

As Mrs. Chappellsmith says she 
is "not certain that Burr cites 
accurately" her letter of Dec. 31, 
1874, Burr will now send Chap- 
pellsmith the original. » 

Chappellsmith further says: "I 
told Burr * * * that I 
thought that known facts made 
against the probability 1 ' that Paine 
was Junius. What she did say 
was this: 

"I think that Paine's position in life 
and vocations could not have enabled 
him to have the familiarity with the per- 
sonages criticized in the Junius letters, 
which the writer of those letters appears 
to have had, and the style of those letters 
indicates a greater exn- rience in writing 
than Paine could have had in 17G9." 



The first of these objections 
te the only "reasonable" one raised 
by Prof. JDenslow. It was repeat- 
sd by Col. Ingersoll, but refuted 
not only by James Parton, but by 
the private letters of Junius, espe- 
cially those written to John 
Wilkes, and lastly by one written 
to Lord Chatham. On the presen- 
tation of these evidences by me, 
Prof. Denslow gave up his only 
"reasonable objection," but it was 
afterwards again repeated substan- 
iially by Mr. Underwood. 

In regard to experience in writ- 
ing, it is certain that Junius wrote 
for Woodfali's paper nearly two 
years before his first essay as Jun- 
ius. And when the first of those 
earlier letters appeared, Paine was 
30 years of age, while Philip Fran- 
cis was only 26. 

If Paine was without experience 
as a writer in 1776, how came he to 
produce so remarkable a work as 
"Common Sense.?" Of this per- 
formance, Prof. Denslow says: 

"In the very first sentences of 
"Common Sense," all the polished 
sarcasm, fine rhetorical antithesis, 
and lofty blending of philosophic 
calmness, with contemptuous dis- 
dain for his adversaries, all the 
tart crisp, pugnacious simplicity, 
and hard clearness of statement; 
in a word, every element of literary 
force, political depth, and range of 
thought which distinguish Junius, 
reappear. 

Again says Prof. D., after quot- 
ing the paragraph about the slave 
trade in the original draft of the 
declaration of independence. "The 
English language possesses no 
clause more elaborate in its rhetor- 
ic, and few so false in fact." 

The alleged falsehoods, by the 






way, which Prof. D. attempts to 
point out in the declaration are not 
falsehoods at all. That George 
III had "prostituted his negative 
for suppressing every legislative 
attempt to prohibit or restrain this 
execrable commerce" in men, was 
the subject of complaint in 1774, 
and in October of that year, the 
colonial congress unanimously 
adopted a declaration, which they 
sent to the king, containing among 
other things this article: 

"That we will neither import nor 
purchase any slave imported after 
the first day of December next, af- 
ter which time we will wholly dis- 
continue the slave trade." 

And in August of, the same 
year, Jefferson himself drew up a 
resolution of instructions to the 
deputies when assembled in con- 
gress, in which he said that the 
repeated attempts to stop the 
slave trade had "been hitherto de- 
eatecl by his majesty's negative." 

Again Prof. D. says the declar- 
ation of 1776 contains such false 
counts as "abolishing the free sys- 
tem of English laws in Canada," 
and he quotes that blundering his- 
torian, Bancraft, to prove it false. 
Now the colonial declaration 01 
Oct. 20, 1774, above referred to, 
mentions, among other offensive 
acts of parliament, "an act extend- 
ing the province of Quebec, so as to 
border on the western frontiers of 
colonies, establishing an arbitrary 
government therein and discourag- 
ing the settlement of British sub- 
jects in that wide extended coun- 
try," &c. The whole clause of 
1774, is reproduced quite literally 
in the declaration of 1776. If, 
therefore, these two complaints 
were "false, in fact," as Prof. D. 



asserts, they were repeatedly made 
and attested by every colonial con- 
gressman of 1774, and 1776. 

Another absurd error of Prof. 
Denslow's is the dogmatic denial 
of the self-evident truth that all 
men are created equal. Will he, 
or anybody else, deny that I have 
not an equal right with himself to 
"life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness?" That is exactly the 
meaning and the expression of the 
declaration, and it is folly to deny 
so self-evident a truth. 

W. H. B. 



For the Seymour Times. 

Blundering' and Mud-slinging. 
"Washington, D. C, April 30, 1881. 

Mr. Underwood is unlucky, to 
say the least, in regard to the dis- 
covery of his mistakes. I always 
happen to get a little ahead of him. 
lie did not discover that he "wrote 
or intended to write inconclusive for 
conclusive" until 1 exposed the fal- 
lacy of his position. He did not 
discover the error about Franklin, 
which he so eagerly embraced to 
support the claim of Jefferson's au- 
thorship of the declaration of in- 
dependence, until I had looked up 
the authority and detected the 
blunder. And then he said the 
error was corrected the moment he 
discovered it ! As if he and not I 
found it out. 

And now again, writing at Sey- 
mour, Incl., April 26, the very day 
when I (and probably he) received 
the Investigator containing my re- 
iterated exposure of another persis- 
tent error of his, namely, that the 
author of J. XL, is or was a spirit- 
ualist, he makes a half-way correc- 
tion and apology for that. 

He also takes great pains to hunt 
up and reproduce what I had al- 



8 



les two weeks 

Lo! he leavesout 
from bhe quota;' at proves 

him b sserts 

that "the conviction that Paine was 
Jnniu i result of ac- 

quaintance with the subject, based 
I now quote a sin- 
gle sentec m the hiatus of 
Mr. U's partial quotation: "In 
producing this work he [the author 
of J. UJ has made a long and labor- 
ious research." And a little further 
on I say : "The next inquiry was one 
involving great literary labor and 
keen criticism. A thorough analy- 
sis of Paine's political writings had 
to be made, as well as of the let- 
ters of Junius. At every step the 
proof accumulated." Jn short, 
more than two thirds of my article 
of January 21, 1872 is made up 
of proofs, taken from the book its- 
elf, that Paine wrote the letters of 
Junius and the declaration of inde- 
pendence. But despite all this 
Mr. U. insinuates that I have not 
told the whole truth and audacious- 
ly affirms that the "conviction that 
Paine was Junius was not the re- 
sult of acquaintance with the sub- 
ject, based upon study!" 

Mr. Underwood with his feet 
fast in Franciscan mire has been 
throwing mud at Junius and his 
champions. And now "Don ( 
ote" Coleman, a spiritualistic 
knight has come to the help of the 
rialistic chieftain. But alas, 
D. Q. C. is also stuck fast in the mire 
and can't sling much mud. W< >n't 
somebody with longer legs and 
stout kindly lift these two 

slingers oat of the slough? 

W. H. B. 



I^OW EEADY 



THE 

ORIGIN « MAN; 

OR, TESTIS 

early reforms. 

A TALE OF TAILS. 

BY 

J. R. MONROE, M; D, 

Editor of the Seymour (Tnd.) Times. 



Sixty pages, handsomely printed. Price 
in paper 60 cents. Three cent stamps may 
be remitted. 




10 CENTS. 

THE PICTURE OF THE 

B I Bsl. E G O D, 

with some chapters of nice reading for christians and 
heathens. Just issued from the Seymour Times 
publication office. 

The contemplation of this beautiful picture cart- 
not j'-u] to inspire devotion and love of god in the 
Iders. Ten cents by mail. Dis- 
count to the trade. Address, J. It. MONROE, 

April 5, 103. Seymour Indiana. 



DEL. MO] ie of Dramas and Poems— 

a beautifully printed and bound volume of 190 
pages— a few copie left. Price, by mail, $1.G0. 



D 



: („ King David. A short 
"pome " i ents. 28-tf 



State ^oenlai*ix;atioii. 

Address of the Committee— Underwood, .Donslow 
and Spencer— to the people of the United Statoi 
Price, J. R. MONROE, 

Jau. 8,'81.-tf. Seymour, 

(> AWELY JIM, a thrilling Yankcestory •- I 
J^~ the ounds the mighty, by Itev. Theo- 

D.D. if. - 

[dress, Dr. J. 11. Monroe, 
Seymour, Ind, 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

020 661 517 5 



